³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Dr Marks, do you want to add anything?

Do you have anything to add, Professor Collins?

Our route for students was the stagiaire system, which was very successful and was used by many students to get real experience in Brussels. They got virtually no salary, but it was very useful. Of course, because we are no longer a member of the EU, we can no longer use those opportunities. I am just pointing that out.

Professor Collins, at some distance, you may be more able to point a finger of accountability. Could more be done by non-governmental service bodies to advance their interests, or does that have to wait for revision of the trade agreement? Once that is done, of course, that will be it for another few years. Is there more of a role for organisations themselves to get involved in order to achieve what they want to achieve, without Governments necessarily being involved?

I think that a lot of economists would not agree with a structurally imposed lack of reciprocity, if I can put it that way.

My other question is about the comments that Dr Anderson made on the achievements of the faculty and the Law Society in getting agreements with other countries when they want to be involved in work in those countries. In my view, Brexit has been a complete disaster, to be honest. Professor Collins talked about our being slightly above GATS or WTO level, which is a disaster for the economy, and we are seeing that in the lost billions.

However, it is now some time since Brexit happened—although it is not so much time since the agreement happened—but surely it should be possible for many agreements to be made more quickly. I know that such things tend not to move very fast. I suppose that what I am interested in—as most politicians would be—is accountability. I am probably asking the wrong people here, but who should we be looking to for accountability for the lack of progress? Is there an extent to which organisations could do more to get the recognition that they are looking for, or is it structurally very difficult to do that without member-state involvement? In my experience, because of the system that we have in Scotland and the UK, many organisations wait for the Government to move on lots of things. Is it not possible for organisations to do more in the meantime, or is that structurally difficult or a resource question?

I will leave the cabinet secretary with a suggestion that might strengthen his arm in his discussions with colleagues. There might be a particular case to be made for the culture sector, given its precariousness and the fact that the £100 million-plus has already been identified as an end point. However, I am not looking for a response on that.

It will be interesting to see whether, as I believe that he will, the cabinet secretary achieves £25 million-plus next year, and whether people in this Parliament who say that they want an increase—an increase, I should point out, compared with what is happening elsewhere—support it. My view and my prediction just now is that they will not.

My second question is on sustainability of morale, rather than finances. We have heard a lot of evidence—I would point, for example, to the Official Report of the committee’s previous meeting—about morale in the sector not being good, partly for the reasons that we have heard such as the perfect storm that people have experienced and the other pressures that they are under. That view might be a wee bit at odds with the fact that, as the cabinet secretary has said, Scotland has been pretty unique in having an increasing budget in this area. However, I note that people felt that, at various levels, they did not have access to or feel included by the Scottish Government in the way that they would have wanted. I think that they are reeling somewhat from the effect of the decision not to have a culture minister, which puts additional pressure on you, cabinet secretary, given that you are having to take on that brief as well as the external affairs and Europe portfolio.

Nevertheless, the sector is looking for greater engagement, and I think that, in these constrained financial times, regular discussion, dialogue and engagement with the sector would, on the basis of some of the testimony that we have had from stakeholders, go a long way. Is it possible to do that? I know that it will be time consuming, but can you offer any support to the sector in that regard?

I have a comment. If you look at the evidence that the committee has taken, especially at our meeting two weeks ago, you will see that organisations feel that cross-portfolio work in Government is an issue. Mr Adam questioned them about that.

I do not think that the issue for organisations is necessarily about having working groups with particular aims; rather, it is about something that is much more amorphous, such as having a discussion, a chat or a meeting at events, and about feeling included. Those types of engagement have a value in their own right. Having heard their evidence, I am not certain that many organisations will take the initiative to contact you. It will have to be down to the Government to say that you are going to have a discussion.

It is just a question of feeling supported and engaged.

I have two questions on sustainability. Many people who are watching the meeting will ask themselves whether it is sheer hypocrisy to demand certainty and multiyear funding from the Scottish Government and, at the same time, say nothing about £160 million being taken out of the Scottish Government’s budget with 90 minutes’ notice. The two things cannot co-exist, and where they do, it is hypocritical, in my view.

On financial sustainability, it is true that, as Meghan Gallacher said and, I think, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, all sorts of third sector groups are very keen to have multiyear funding. How you can have that when you do not have certainty from Westminster is the big question, but is it the case that the culture sector is slightly different? The sector has told us in evidence how precarious it feels, and if you have an end point of £100 million-plus in 2028, you know that you will be spending £100 million more by then. Is the bridge to that not a more manageable process in the culture sector than it would be in a number of other sectors? The sector is uniquely precarious, but you have an end point in place that you and your colleagues can usefully use to consider whether indications could be given as to what funding there will be over the next three or four years.

How late on did you tell them?

So, essentially, 1 per cent would mean doubling the budget?